9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-8-2015 - K.M. Joseph, C.J. and V.K. Bist, J. Shri R.K. Raizada, Senior Advocate, assisted by Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, Assistant Solicitor General, H.M. Bhatia, Vipul Sharma and Shobhit Saharia, Advocates, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT [Judgment per : K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral)]. - These two writ petitions being connected, we are disposing of the same by this common judgment. 2. Writ Petition (MB) No. 1 of 2015 was, originally, numbered as Writ Petition (MS) No. 1846 of 2011. The prayers sought in the said writ petition are as follows : (I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 5-7-2011 issued by respondent No. 1 annexed as Annexure No. 23 to the writ petition. (II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to include the Khasra No. 115-M, 24-Aa, 41-M, 42-M, 31, 39, 40, 45-M, 149-Da, 161-B, 25-B, 161-M total area 1.127 hectares of village Shivlalpur, Tehsil, Kashipur Ramnagar, District Nainital in the No. 50, dated 10-6-2003 issued for the units carrying on the industrial activities in non-industria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration Certificate, besides No Objection from the Pollution Control Board. By communication dated 7-1-2003 (Annexure No. 3), Government of India declared various fiscal incentives. A further scheme was formulated regarding the grant of capital subsidy and it is known as the Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 2003 vide Notification dated 8-1-2003 (Annexure No. 4). Notification No. 49/2003 (Annexure No. 5) came to be issued on 10-6-2003 in purported exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 and sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978, purporting to exempt goods specified in the Schedule appended to the Notification and cleared from a unit in the State of Uttarakhand for a period of 10 years. Industrial units, which are already in existence and which had undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in their installed capacity by not less than 25 per cent on or after the 7th day of January, 2003, were also entitled to the exemption. Petitioner wrote ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit of exemption Notification Nos. 49/2003 and 50/2003 both dated 10-6-2003. In this regard, you are hereby requested to inform about the installed capacity of your plant before the expansion of your unit. The said information may please be furnished to this within two days of receipt of this letter. YOURS SINCERELY SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL EXCISE, RANGE-II KASHIPUR iii. Thereafter, we find that the next document produced is Annexure No. 10, dated 9-12-2009. It reads as follows : OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE, RANGE-II, KASHIPUR GUDIA COMPLEX, BAZPUR ROAD, KASHIPUR. C. No. 20-CE/KPR-II/Parvatiya/Exemp./09/1014 Dated : 9-12-2009 To, M/s. Parvatiya Plywood Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 3. Vill-Shivlalpur, P.O. Ramnagar, District-Nainital (Uttarakhand). Dear Sirs, Subject : Availment of exemption under notification No. 49/2003- C.E., dated 10-6-2003-C/Reg. Please refer to your declaration dated 1-12-2009 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division, Haldwani, a copy of which received in the Range Office on 3-12-2009, regarding exercise of option to avail of exemption from payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0-12-2009 Ref No: C. No. V(30) Exemp/309/PPPL/2009 - Availment of exemption under Notification No. 49/2003-C.E., dated 10-6-2003. Sir, We are in receipt of your letter dated 30-12-2009 asking us to clarify the reasons for availing the exemption under Notification No. 49/2003-C.E., dated 10-6-2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Notification ). In this regard, we wish to clarify as under :- 1. We are proposing to avail the exemption provided under the Notification No. 49/2003-C.E. The exemption provided in this Notification is for the new unit set up or got substantial expansion in the State of Uttarakhand, which manufacture the goods specified in the Schedule annexed in this Notification. 2. We wish to bring to your notice that both, the Notification No. 49/2003-C.E., dated 10-6-2003 and Notification No. 50/2003-C.E., dated 10-6-2003 have been issued so as to promote industrial development in the State of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh under the Industrial Policy 2003. The Industrial Policy seeks to promote forest based industries and particularly States that there is excellent potential for the development of forest resources based industries in the Stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tured by us. 5. In view of the above and keeping in view that the Notification No. 49/2003 is also enacted to give effect to the intention of the industrial policy, the goods manufactured by us are covered under Sl. No. 18 of the Notification and hence we are eligible to claim exemption under the Notification No. 49/2003 also irrespective of my right to claim the exemption under Notification No. 50/2003. Therefore, the present application has been filed for claiming exemption under Notification No. 49/2003. Thanking You, Yours Faithfully Dated 27-1-2010 Place : Ramnagar For Parvatiya Plywood Pvt. Ltd. (Managing Director) Enclosed : Copy of State Industrial Policy of Uttaranchal 2003 Copy To : - The Superintendent Central Excise, Range-II, Kashipur. v. Petitioner has also produced letter dated 29-1-2010 written by the petitioner to the Superintendent, Central Excise, purporting to produce various documents, including the Chareted Engineer Certificate, Balance Sheets from 2004-2005 to 2008-2009, Chartered Accountant Certificate, Bill of Plant and Machinery, Registry Papers, Khasra Khatauni Pap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioning of name of the units and Khasra Numbers in Annexure-TT to the Notification. Accordingly, fate of the present writ petitioner would be similar to that of the writ petitioner in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 628 of 2005. We accordingly dispose of this writ petition in the light of our judgment rendered in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 628 of 2005. 2. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be informed of the outcome of the representation made by it within six weeks from the date of service of a copy of this order upon Revenue Secretary, Government of India. We make it absolutely clear that although there are pleadings to the effect that the petitioner has made substantial expansion in terms of the policy in question, but we have not gone into that aspect of the matter. viii. It is necessary to refer to the judgment dated 21-12-2010 passed in Writ Petition (MB) No. 628 of 2005, which is referred to in the said judgment and on the basis of which the said writ petition was disposed of. It reads as follows : Review Application No. 81 of 2006 On 20th April 2006, Writ Petition (M/B) No. 263 of 2005 was finally decided by a Division Bench of this Court on the basis of submission, sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntained in the policy. The question, therefore, is whether an existing industrial unit, situated in an industrial estate located in Annexure-I to the policy, could ask for the benefits under the said policy. In order to ask for the benefits under the policy, the unit concerned was required to show that it has made substantial expansion. Since what would be substantial expansion had not been indicated in the policy, there would always be dispute whether the unit concerned has discharged its obligations under the policy in order to take advantage or benefits thereunder. In substance, therefore, the conclusion would be that the policy dated 7th January 2003, in so far as existing industrial units are concerned, was not conclusive. The same would become conclusive and, accordingly, would become enforceable, only when further steps have been taken by amending Acts/Rules/Notifications, etc. or by issuing necessary instructions for giving effect to the decision contained in the policy. 2. The policy was given effect to and was made conclusive on 10th June, 2003, when an exemption notification was made and published. In that, it was indicated that an existing industrial unit must expand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while looking at the notification dated 19th May, 2005, it transpired that thereby notification dated 10th June, 2003 was amended. While, however, amending the said notification dated 10th June, 2003, Annexure-II to the notification dated 10th June, 2003 was retained, showing industrial estates situated at Khasra numbers, Tehsils, districts and the State, in which if an industry is in existence, on substantial expansion thereof, or a new industry will be entitled to the benefit of the said policy, but at the same time a new annexure, being Annexure-III, was added to the Notification dated 10th June, 2003 giving similar such particulars of the industrial estates, where only on setting up of new industries, benefit of the policy would be available. It was contended that in Annexure-III, the Khasra numbers, pertaining to the industry of the petitioner situated in Tehsil : Kotdwar, District : Pauri Garhwal, State of Uttarakhand, was mentioned. It is the contention of the petitioner in the writ petition that a mandamus should, in the circumstances, be issued to rectify the original mistake, as was committed in Annexure-II to the notification dated 10th June, 2003 or to issue a directio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purpose of taking advantage of the policy in question. 4. Assuming, as has been canvassed before us, that the State of Uttarakhand at the time of furnishing particulars to denote the subject industrial estates, by mistake omitted to include Khasra Nos. 60(d) and 61 and later on realizing the said mistake, wanted to incorporate the same in the notification dated 10th June, 2003, but the fact remains that the request of the State Government has not been acceded to by the Central Government and, accordingly, the same has not been incorporated in Annexure-II to the notification dated 10th June, 2003. It is not the contention of the Central Government that it made a mistake. As would be evident from the judgment of this Court dated 3rd March, 2005, the Central Government, though may have had conceded that there had been mistake on the part of the State Government, but, nevertheless, it never contended that there was any mistake on its part in the matter of making the notification dated 10th June, 2003. Therefore, even if on the basis of mistake committed by the State Government the notification dated 10th June, 2003 had been made by the Central Government, the question is, can the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od of six weeks from the date of service of a copy of this order upon Revenue Secretary, Government of India. We make it absolutely clear that, although there are pleadings to the effect that the petitioner has made substantial expansion in terms of the policy in question, but we have not gone into that aspect of the matter. ix. Thereafter, it appears that, vide order dated 5th July, 2011 (Annexure No. 23), which is impugned as prayer No. 1, petitioner was communicated the reasons as to why the petitioner was not given the benefit of the notification. It reads as follows : F. No. 336/08/2011-TRU Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Tax Research Unit Room No. 146-1, North Block New Delhi dated 5th July, 2011 To M/s Parvatiya Plywood Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 3, Vill. Shivlalpur, PO Ramnagar, Nainital Uttarakhand. Sir, Subject : Order of the Hon ble High Court of Uttaranchal in Writ Petition No. 542 (MB) of 2005 by M/s. Parvatiya Plywood Pvt. Ltd. v. GOI Others - Regarding. Please refer to order of the Hon ble High Court of Uttaranchal dated 21-12-2010 in Writ Petition No. 542 (MB) of 2005 and your reque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Assistant Solicitor General, for the Union of India/respondent No. 1. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent No. 4. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate, for the respondent No. 5. Though the arguments of the Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner have been heard by this Court at great extent nay the submissions have been made on behalf of few of the respondents, but meanwhile an application has been moved by respondents No. 1, 2 and 5 with the prayer that the matter should be referred to the Division Bench of this Court for deciding the question of law as mentioned in paragraph No. 2 of their application. This application has been resisted by Learned Sr. Counsel of the petitioner. I feel that not only the question of law, as has been formulated in paragraph No. 2 of this application dated 11-3-2015, but the entire controversy depicted in the matter is so intricate in itself that in the interest of justice and for proper adjudication, better the matter should be adjudicated by the Division Bench and, for that, Hon ble Chief Justice is requested to constitute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Bench of two Judges. In the majority judgment, the Court has summed-up its conclusions. The Court took the view that an order of referring the case to the Division Bench is a judicial order and, though it is a discretionary order, there should be reasons. It is apposite to refer to para 20 of the said judgment as under : 20. In view of the above, it is contended before us that if an adjournment is a judicial order, it must contain reasons. There are some orders of reference where the only order is adjourned to a Division Bench . There may be cases where there is a conflict of two or more decisions of single Judges of this Court with no decision of the Division Bench or of the Apex Court in the field. This would certainly justify a reference by a single Judge to a Division Bench. Secondly, there may be an important question of law of general or public importance affecting a large number of cases, as was the case referred to a Division Bench of this Court regarding the grant of Plus-Two-courses, (11th and 12th Standard), for the academic year 2000-2001. There were nearly 200 petitions involving a large number of students, parents, teachers, managements and the issue had threa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easons, a reference would be unjustified. It would not be appropriate to catalogue an exhaustive list of situations. It may not be proper for a Single Judge to mechanically pass order, whether it is at the request of the parties or even suo motu, to refer the matter. A Single Judge is expected to deal with questions of fact and questions of law. If he deals with questions of fact and law and if he renders a judgment thereon, in cases provided by Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules, an intra-court appeal may be maintainable. This is also a very precious right vouchsafed for the litigant. This aspect must also be borne in mind when the court decides to refer a matter to a Division Bench. 14. In this case, however, we notice that the Learned Single Judge has found that there is a question of law and it was found to be so intricate in itself and, for its proper adjudication, he felt it necessary to refer the matter to the Division Bench. In fact, Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Learned Counsel appearing for the Excise Department, would submit that any decision on this will have far-reaching repercussions in regard to the implication of the notification. Therefore, in the circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chemes under this policy will be notified separately. In clause 4, the Government reserved the right to modify any part of the policy in the interest of public. Thereafter, it is necessary to notice that, under Annexure-I, it deals with locations identified in the following Tehsil of the State of Uttaranchal for excise exemption under the new industrial policy for the State of Uttaranchal and the State of Himachal Pradesh. Under the State of Uttaranchal, in the second column against the district Nainital, we find that Ram Nagar is also mentioned. 18. Then, the next Notification is dated 8-1-2003 (Annexure No. 4). That purports to provide for central subsidy for industrial units. In that, there is reference to effective steps, substantial expansion and fixed capital investment. Apparently, it relates to admissible subsidy. 19. This was followed by the actual Notifications, two in number. Notification No. 49/2003 is dated 10-6-2003. It provides for exemption available to certain products. Then, on the same day, another Notification No. 50/2003 was issued, i.e. on 10-6-2003. It is necessary to refer to the Preamble and also clause 2 contained therein. They read as follows : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and New India Match Co. and General Timber Product. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner s unit also is a plywood unit; it is located in Ram Nagar; and it is located quite close to these units; but, what is conspicuous by its absence is its inclusion in khasra numbers and the unit of the petitioner in the said Notification under the heading industrial activity in non-industrial area (with their expansion) . It is pointed out that Serial Nos. 13 to 34, under the second column, which relates to the actual units, it is left blank and they are barren lands; but they are, of course, located in Haldwani, which is a part of District Nainital. 21. The contentions, which have been addressed before us by the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, are, essentially, that there was no rationale for not including the khasra numbers of the petitioner in the Notification and depriving the petitioner of the benefit of the Notification. Petitioner was an existing unit since 1986. With reference to the communications, which we have already adverted to, it is submitted that the petitioner had carried out the expansion within the meaning of the Notification so as to earn the rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Correction/Amendment in the excise notification No. 50, dated 10-6-2004 issued by Govt. of India for the State of Uttaranchal. Dear Sir, You are aware that certain khasra numbers were left in the aforesaid notification either in existing Industrial Estates or Industrial activities in non-industrial Estates. When the said corrections were sent to GOI vide letter No. 707, dated 29-6-2004 for notification of amended list of khasra numbers, it was advised by DIPP, Government of India, to check up thoroughly the corrections, at the level of GOU and furnish a consolidated list of such corrections. In compliance to the instructions of GOI, the corrections required to be done have been re-checked and complied in the following two categories : (i) Existing Industrial Estates/Areas. (ii) Industrial activities in non-industrial areas. 2. Further, some private Industrial Estates in joint sector with SIDCUL are also being developed by the entrepreneurs, some of which have already been notified, whereas some are in the process of notification. Khasra numbers of such private Industrial Estates are being annexed as category E for their notification. 3. The above cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the disposal of the representation by rejecting the same, it furnished fresh cause of action and, therefore, the Court cannot be deterred from granting relief to the petitioner. It is petitioner s case that there was an interim order directing his representation to be considered. The Learned Senior Counsel drew our attention to the following decisions of the Hon ble Apex Court : (i) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma Another, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 179. (ii) State of Haryana Others v. M.P. Mohla, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 457. (iii) Mool Shanker Singh v. Regional Manager, PNB Another, reported in (2004) 9 SCC 754. 26. The last one was for the proposition that, if a representation is directed to be disposed of, there would be no bar in the Court considering challenge to the decision rendered on the representation. It is submitted that this is a case, where the Central Government had enunciated a policy. Under the policy, certain benefits would accrue to the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the same under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, for which, apparently, store (sic) is laid by the conduct of the Department (Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry for the purpose of Excise and Income Tax exemptions and Capital Investment subsidies was emphasized. Principal Secretary to PM was of the view that if the total area in the notified industrial estate/capital industrial area does not change, then the Khasra numbers should not be insisted upon by the Ministry of Finance and the State Governments should be given the freedom to alter the notified area accordingly. After detailed examination of the issues involved, the following line of action was agreed upon : 1. Modifications, if any, will be restricted to industrial estates/areas/existing industrial estates/industrial activity in a non-industrial area as notified by the Government of India in its notification No. 50 dated July 6, 2003. 2. That any substitution/modification/alteration in any notified area/estate etc., will not result in any net increase of that particular Area/Estate. 3. That this is being done primarily to facilitate the proper planning of Industrial Estates/Areas. 4. Thus the State Government will ensure that no area which has been de-notified has been allocated to any industry which may later claim benefits under the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that, in the said list, the khasra numbers of the petitioner did not figure. 30. Therefore, he would submit that it is on the basis of the same that the Court should view the legality of order dated 5-7-2011 (Annexure No. 23). That is to say, in the final round, the case of the petitioner was not recommended by the State Government. This is for the reason that it did not fall within the scope of the decision taken, namely, while individual khasra numbers, which were left out and which deserved to be included, could be included, provided that the net area could not be increased. It is, therefore, the case that, in terms of the same, there is no merit in the case. This is apart from contending that, having courted the earlier judgment by the Division Bench of this Court, nothing survived for consideration. All that transpired was that, following a judgment in another case, where in fact representation had been filed; the case of the petitioner was also directed to be dealt with in the same lines and the writ petition was in fact closed. Only the reasons were to be given to the petitioner, which was duly done. 31. Mr. Shobhit Saharia would submit that it is noteworthy that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e left out existing units outside the industrial area with their khasra number is being forwarded for notification by the GOI. 4. Since it was decided that there should not be much increase in the net area of the declared/notified land, a proposal for deletion of certain khasra numbers as notified by GOI is also being submitted. It is requested that the proposal of addition of khasra numbers of the industrial areas and of the industrial units outside the industrial areas may kindly be got notified by the Finance Ministry (Revenue Department), Govt., of India. With warm regards and best wishes for the New Year. Yours sincerely, Sd/- (Sanjeev Chopra) 13-12-2005 Shri N.N. Prasad Joint Secretary Ministry of Commerce Industry Govt., of India (Dept., of Industrial Promotion Policy) Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. Encls : (Details of the Khasra numbers to be notified). 33. Therefore, he would submit that it is not open to the Government to indicate helplessness and to refuse to extend the benefits of the concessions to the petitioner, which are otherwise available in law. 34. On this submission being made, Mr. Shobhit Saharia brought to ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification. We have noticed from the judgment, which we have extracted, that the Court was not inclined to grant the benefit. In fact, the Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the decision in a writ petition filed by another unit, i.e. M/s. Sant Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. We have referred to the said judgment also. The Court proceeded to take the view that, even if there is a mistake in not including certain khasra numbers, the Court would be encroaching on the policy matters, if it was to be persuaded to issue a direction to include specified khasra numbers. The Court, further, discountenanced the plea of discrimination. Thereafter, the Court closed the matter. Finally, the Court, however, proceeded to direct that the decision on the representation be made known to the petitioner therein. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, as we have already noticed, was also disposed of on the same lines. The effect of the same would be that the prayer for inclusion of the khasra numbers of the petitioner must be treated as having been turned down. A relief if it is not granted or if the judgment is silent regarding a particular relief; it is, both, in accordance wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would by itself be sufficient to generate the benefit of the concessions in its favour; the Government of India contemplated conferring of benefits on units located in other areas. They were to be notified. The case of the petitioner would appear to be that it should fall in the Notification dated 10-6-2003, which is brought out as Notification No. 50/2003, which is an area-based notification, under the heading industrial activity in non-industrial area , we have already adverted to. Some of the units do find mention therein under the heading Nainital District of State of Uttarakhand. Admittedly, petitioner s khasra numbers never figured in the Notification brought out by the Government of India. Therefore, we find it difficult to accept that there can be any case based on the principle of promissory estoppel. It may be true that the officials of the Excise Department wrote to the petitioner in the manner they did. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Learned Counsel for the Excise Department, would, in fact, question the competence of the officials, like the Superintendent, Assistant Commissioner, etc. to give a promise, which would bind the Government. It is settled law that a promise, to be b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r it is entitled on the strength of the same to claim the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003. Insofar as the khasra numbers of the petitioner s unit and the petitioner s unit are concerned, they do not find mention either in the original Notification or in the amended Notification dated 19-5-2005. It is quite clear that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the said Notification. The Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that a notification under the Excise Act is the species of subordinate legislation. 41. The decisions, which have been relied on by the petitioner, in our view, are clearly distinguishable and cannot assist the petitioner. In (2007) 4 SCC 221, the Court was dealing with the concept of fraud as vitiating the judgments despite the same being rendered right up to the Apex Court s dismissing the Special Leave Petition. The High Court, in a later round, was persuaded to notice that the earlier judgment was obtained without disclosing a very material fact and the recall application was allowed. 42. In similar way is the judgment in AIR 1991 Karnataka 63. That was a case, where petitions were filed seeking to challenge a notification, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt regarding the merits of the case, which was that, even if khasra numbers are not included by way of mistake, the Court would be encroaching on to the areas reserved for the policy-maker and it would not give any such direction and also that there is no discrimination, had purported to give a quietus to the litigation; we would think that the case of the petitioner would not stand on a better footing, but it would perhaps be a worse case. This is for the reason that it was not by way of mistake that the Government of the day in the State Government did not recommend the case of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner, though earlier recommended by the very same officer, was not recommended in terms of the decision, which was taken by the Central Government and the State Government together. In other words, the case of the petitioner, apparently, did not fall within the parameters evolved by the authorities. At this juncture, it is noteworthy to notice that a person cannot get a right for an exemption, except when it flows from the words used by the framer of the notification. Admittedly, petitioner did not fall within the terms of the notification. Without inclusion of the kha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in which petitioner did not figure. It is noteworthy that the earlier writ petition was filed by the petitioner only on 26-5-2005 after the issuance of the Notification. 47. We also reject the reliance placed by the petitioner on communication dated 13-12-2005 issued by the Secretary in the Industrial Department having regard to his own conduct representing the State. It was written by him on 21-4-2005 that there will be no further requests for inclusion. Now, it did not lie in his mouth to, again, make a request, no doubt, this time around, seeking to delete certain areas and to include the khasra numbers of the petitioner. We would think that this communication cannot have the effect of vitiating the amended Notification issued on 19-5-2005, nor can it have the effect of permitting the petitioner to challenge the decision on the representation. Even permitting the petitioner the right to challenge that notification on the basis that it furnished a new cause of action, we would reject the case of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the exemption having regard to the fact that, till the issuance of the amended notification and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
